[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 96 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    NEW LEAKS OF INFORMATION FROM KEN STARR'S INVESTIGATION IMPUGN 
          INTEGRITY OF DEDICATED SECRET SERVICE PROFESSIONALS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 16, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, leaks of confidential information regarding 
Ken Starr's investigation of the President have become intolerable. 
Yesterday, the media was filled with reports that were attributed to 
congressional sources close to Mr. Starr's investigation. According to 
those sources, Mr. Starr subpoenaed Larry Cockell, the head of the 
President's Secret Service protection team, in order to learn whether 
the Secret Service ``facilitated'' meetings between the President and 
unnamed women.
  The suggestion that the Secret Service would do that kind of thing is 
an outrage. And to share those sinister and unfounded suspicions with 
unnamed congressional sources is even worse. Why should the Secret 
Service have to endure this slander from people who claim to represent 
the United States of America?
  Secret Service agents put their lives on the line day-in and day-out. 
Whenever, the President is in public, they are in the line of fire. Who 
can forget the searing image of John Hinckley's cowardly attack on 
President Reagan. And who can forget the fact that Tim McCarthy, the 
President's Secret Service agent, took a bullet to save the President's 
life.
  The agents who protect the President are the best of the best. It is 
an insult to the integrity and professionalism of these dedicated men 
and women to think that they would participate in these kinds of 
activities. In fact, Lewis Merletti, the Director of the Secret 
Service, and the former head of the President security team, said last 
night that he would have resigned before he would have tolerated 
improper activity by a person he as assigned to protect.
  Mr. Starr denies that he leaked information about the Secret Service 
matter to Congress. Unfortunately, he has little credibility on that 
issue. In the past, Mr. Starr said that he made ``the prohibition of 
leaks a principal priority'' of his Office. He also said that he 
considered leaks ``a firing offense.''
  Only later did we learn that Mr. Starr and his chief deputy routinely 
talk to reporters off-the-record. When that fact was exposed, Mr. Starr 
tried to argue that as long as he did not reveal what a witness said in 
the grand jury room, there was no law or ethical rule that prevented 
him from talking to reporters. Of course, Mr. Starr's position is 
contrary to a recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that 
makes it illegal to reveal ``not only what has occurred and what is 
occurring, but also what is likely to occur. Encompassed within the 
rule of secrecy are the identities of witnesses of jurors, the 
substance of testimony as well as actual transcripts, the strategy or 
direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of the 
jurors, and the like.''
  Over and over again, Mr. Starr either pushes or exceeds the limits of 
propriety. His dealings with the Secret Service are a good example. 
Although Mr. Staff won the right in the district court and court of 
appeals to serve his subpoenas, the matter is still under litigation. 
With the issue heading for a showdown in the Supreme Court, why did Mr. 
Starr try to get the agents into the grand jury today? One explanation, 
and one that I hope is not true, is that he wanted to get the testimony 
before the Supreme Court could rule on the issue.
  Mr. Starr's insistence that the agents testify today has thrown the 
legal process into disarray. Our legal system is built on the orderly 
movement of a case from the trial court, to appeal, to the Supreme 
Court.
  This process ensures that judges have enough time to consider the 
arguments for and against each side of a dispute. Here, where the 
safety and health of the President of the United States are at issue, 
it is particularly disturbing that Mr. Starr has engaged in legal 
strong-arm tactics.

                          ____________________